DRAFT Version 7 05/09/16
Prepared by:
John Bensted Independent Consultant
September 2016
Community Safety in Gloucestershire Consultation Review
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Gloucestershire has an effective and demonstrable track record of Community Safety
partnership working, but there continue to be significant challenges ahead to ensure
Gloucestershire remains a safe place to live.
This review of Community Safety is the first opportunity for nearly 20 years to not
only look across Gloucestershire's Community Safety landscape in order to assess
current strengths and areas for improvement, but also look towards the horizon to
prepare for the challenges ahead. There already have been many changes in the
world of Community Safety from changing legislation, agency restructures and the
introduction of a Police and Crime Commissioner, however the challenging economic
outlook remains an on-going concern and all agencies and services are continuing to
look at the opportunities this presents in applying new methods of service delivery
and resourcing. This review outlines the opportunities for partners to focus their
limited resources towards jointly delivering against the partnership priorities.
The review is part of Gloucestershire’s bid to become a Combined Authority and
presents an exciting opportunity for the County to be in the forefront of Community
Safety by developing a new operating framework that aligns Community Safety with
the work of the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Health and Well Being
Board whilst integrating the work of other key partnerships such the Enabling Active
Communities Partnership and Safeguarding Boards.
The Terms of Reference for the review have enabled a broad range of issues to be
considered and this Executive Summary highlights some of the major themes and
issues:
The six Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) all operate slightly differently and
there were very different reflections on the evolution of Community Safety in the
County. Interviewees discussed the strengths and areas for improvement in their
own district/agency, as well as the need for an overarching Gloucestershire
Community Safety Partnership that takes into account the rural and urban issues
of Gloucestershire. There was a view from many respondents that this strategic
vacuum had contributed to a sense of fragmentation and disconnection between
District and County Partnerships and Agencies.
Gloucestershire is unusual, as a two tier authority, in not having a Countywide
Community Safety Partnership which undertakes an annual Joint Strategic
ii
Intelligence Assessment (JSIA) which informs planning and prioritisation process.
The development of a County wide approach to strategy and planning is a central
recommendation of this review.
A core strength in Gloucestershire has been the emergence and focus over
recent years of a Strength /Asset based approach to building strong and resilient
communities. Gloucestershire should be proud of this approach which should
central to the next stage in development of Community Safety.
There was a clear recognition of the changing narrative of Community Safety and
the need for much closer strategic links with other key cross cutting partnerships,
notably the Heath and Well Being Board, Safeguarding Boards and the newly
formed Joint Policing Panel.
Whilst there are some key county thematic partnerships that inform the work of
the CSPs such as the Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence Board, there were
some gaps identified which need to be filled. For example there is currently no
county group for sharing learning or developing strategies for Anti-Social
Behaviour (ASB) or for reviewing and implementing lessons learned from
Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHR). Overall the partnership landscape was seen
to be complicated with some ongoing “silo” working and duplication of effort and
work needs to be undertaken to rationalise this area of work.
A related observation from many respondents was the need to make better use
of communication networks with a view to developing a Communication Strategy
for all level and aspects of Community Safety.
This extensive review has identified many areas of best practice and many very
dedicated and creative staff have engaged positively with the review with the
overriding aim of ensuring a more integrated and cohesive approach. The key
recommendations offer options of minor, moderate or major change and should lead
to improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of Community
Safety in Gloucestershire.
iii
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... i
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF APPENDICES..................................................................................................................... v
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
CONTEXT ......................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Local initiatives ................................................................................................... 2
2. National initiatives ............................................................................................... 3
METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 5
FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................................... 6
1. Effectiveness of the six Community Safety Partnerships (CSP) .................................... 6
2. Opportunities to create locally based Multi-Agency Groups with wider remit than CSPs .... 9
3. Feedback about what works from the community and stakeholders ............................ 10
4. Interface between Partnerships, Strategies and Plans .............................................. 11
5. Planning Process .............................................................................................. 11
6. Interface with Health and Wellbeing Board (HWBB) ................................................. 12
7. Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) ................................................................ 14
8. Communications ............................................................................................... 14
9. Safeguarding approaches for 18-25 year olds ........................................................ 15
10. Youth Justice ............................................................................................... 16
11. Crime Reduction .......................................................................................... 17
12. Review of links between Community Safety, Safeguarding and Safeguarding Boards 22
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 24
1. The Priorities for Improving Community Safety ....................................................... 24
2. Operating Models for Community Safety ............................................................... 25
3. Steps towards greater integration ......................................................................... 28
4. Oversight and Scrutiny of Community Safety .......................................................... 31
5. Multi-Agency co-commissioning ........................................................................... 32
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................ 33
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
FIGURE I Partnerships, Strategies and Plans landscape 9
FIGURE II Developing Gloucestershire Community Safety Priorities 12
FIGURE III Operating model - Option 1 25
FIGURE IV Operating model - Option 2 26
FIGURE V Operating model - Option 3 28
FIGURE VI Gloucestershire Strategic Planning Framework 30
v
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page
APPENDIX A Terms of reference – Community Safety Review 33
APPENDIX B GCSP Briefing Note 030516 37
1
BACKGROUND Gloucestershire’s bid to become a Combined Authority has provided the opportunity
to review the way we currently deliver Community Safety in the county and how we
might prepare for a more integrated and cohesive approach in the future.
Community Safety responsibilities were set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998
with specific reference to section 17 of the Act:
“Responsible Authorities which includes local Authorities, the Police, the Police Authority, Fire and Rescue Authorities, Primary Care Trusts, and Probation Trusts are required to develop policy and operational approaches to prevent crime and disorder, combating the use of drugs, alcohol and other substances, anti- social behaviour and other behaviour likely to adversely affect the local environment and to reduce reoffending”.
This review of the Community Safety landscape in Gloucestershire is the first such
review since the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998 led to the establishment of the six
District Community Safety Partnerships (formerly Crime and Disorder Reduction
Partnerships), which set out their approaches to crime reduction and prevention
through their statutorily required community safety strategy. In two-tier authorities the
legislation created county strategy groups and the requirement to publish a county
community safety agreement. However, over recent years the overarching county
community safety strategy has diminished in importance. Gloucestershire’s six CSPs
have continued to adapt and change during the past few years, with the increasing
impact of the reduction in budgets, national and local organisational restructures and
additional responsibilities imposed through emerging legislation.
2
CONTEXT
1. Local initiatives
This review acknowledges that there are a number of emerging cross cutting local
and national agendas affecting the delivery of the community safety and criminal
justice agenda, which will impact on the delivery of Community Safety in the County.
These include the following local developments:
The Police and Crime Plan – This is the second plan of the newly re-elected
PCC for Gloucestershire, Martin Surl. The plan gives particular consideration
to this review of Community Safety and implementing its recommendations.
Health and Well Being Board (HWBB) – There are a number of cross
cutting agendas between the HWBB and the Community Safety landscape,
including domestic abuse, alcohol misuse and mental health issues.
Enabling Active Communities Partnership – This partnership is leading on
Strength Based working and Asset Based Community Development, which
have emerged as key elements of the development of Community Safety in
the six CSPs.
Magistrates Courts – The Ministry of Justice is driving changes to local
courts and greater use of Conditional Cautioning and Restorative Justice.
Restorative Practice – Restorative Gloucestershire is just one of the
agencies involved in developing and rolling out training programmes in
Restorative Practice for staff across different agencies.
Recommissioning Drug and Alcohol Services in Gloucestershire – A
new contract is to be awarded shortly for the delivery of these essential
services that impact on the delivery of Community Safety.
3
2. National initiatives
The following list highlights some of the recent national developments that are
already impacting on the Community Safety landscape:
• The Modern Slavery Act 2015 – The Modern Slavery Act 2015 gives law
enforcement agencies the tools to tackle modern slavery, ensure that perpetrators
can receive suitably severe sentences for these crimes, enhance support and
protection for victims, and ensure large businesses report annually on what they
doing to stop modern slavery occurring in their supply chains.
• The Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB), Crime and Policing Act 2014 – Designed to
introduce simpler, more effective powers to tackle anti-social behaviour that provide
better protection for victims and communities. Two key pieces of the legislation are
the Community Trigger and Community Remedy; both of which provide victims and
communities with a greater say in how agencies respond to complaints of ASB and
in out of court sanctions for offenders.
• Transforming Rehabilitation 2014 (ongoing) – There have been considerable
changes as a result of the Transforming Rehabilitation agenda with the previous
Probation Trusts now reorganised into a single National Probation Service and 21
Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC). As of February 1, 2015, ownership of
Bristol, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Somerset CRC transferred from the Ministry
of Justice to the privately-owned Working Links Group, which has in turn recently
been acquired by a German investment company. Probation have been key
partners in Community Safety for many years.
• PREVENT – The Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill 2015. The Home Office,
which will scrutinise local Prevent action plans, project impact and overall
performance. Local Authorities must comply with the duty and work effectively with
local partners. In addition, schools, colleges, universities, prisons, the health sector
and the police will be required by law to put in place measures to stop would-be
extremists from being drawn into terrorism. It is clear that local authorities are
expected to use a local multi-agency group to agree risk, coordinate and monitor
Prevent activity. The guidance is less clear in two-tier areas such as
Gloucestershire, with county and district/borough councils required to ‘agree
proportionate arrangements for sharing the assessment of risk and for agreeing
local Prevent plans’.
4
• Serious & Organised Crime – The Government’s Serious & Organised Crime
Strategy published in 2013 focuses on four key strands designed to tackle serious
and organised crime. Using the approach originally designed for the PREVENT
strategy these strands are Pursue, Prevent, Protect and Prepare. Gloucestershire
has just established a Joint Policing Panel to drive this strategy locally and develop
a common understanding of the threat from serious and organised crime and the
impact on local communities.
• Troubled Families – Gloucestershire’s Families First scheme has evidenced the
savings being made by a range of agencies and there are now opportunities to
establish strategic and cross cutting links with community safety especially in
relation to ASB, Domestic Abuse, Youth Support Services and Child Sexual
Exploitation.
• Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) – National guidance has been issued to support
front line practitioners from both statutory and voluntary agencies to identify,
address and disrupt this issue. Whilst CSE has been largely the responsibility of
the Children’s Safeguarding Board this review has identified a number of examples
in which CSE has been dealt with as a Community Safety issue. The
recommendations from a recent Ofsted report highlighted a number of common
findings which have relevance for CSPs:
- focus on victims
- engaging with all communities
- better awareness raising and education for professionals and the wider
community
- professional attitudes and use of language
- leadership, challenge and scrutiny
- coordinated, strategic responses and performance management
1. Modern Crime Prevention Strategy 2016 - This Home Office Strategy clearly
identifies the importance of partnership work tackling the drivers of crime, notably
drugs and alcohol. It also highlights the critical role of organisations such as
Neighbourhood Watch who are keen to develop link with CSPs.
5
METHODOLOGY This review was commissioned by Leadership Gloucestershire as part of the bid to
become a Combined Authority. A small multi-disciplinary steering group was
established and clear Terms of Reference (Appendix A) were devised. The review
was carried out between late May and mid-August 2016 and was led by an
Independent Consultant, John Bensted (formerly Chief Executive of Gloucestershire
Probation Trust from 2009 -2014) (Appendix B). Over 50 meetings were held with 60
stakeholders utilising a semi structured interview format and using questions drawn
from the Terms of Reference. The following agencies were interviewed:
• Police and Crime Panel
• Police and Crime Commissioner
• Police and Crime Priority Leads
• District Council Elected Members
• County Council Officers
• District Council Officers
• Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue
• Gloucestershire Constabulary
• Voluntary and Community Sector Representatives
• National Probation Service
• Bristol ,Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Somerset Community Rehabilitation
Company
• Officer Representatives from all six Gloucestershire CSPs
• Public Health
• NHS Gloucestershire
• 2Gether Mental Health Partnership Trust
• Chair of Gloucestershire Magistrates
• Victim Support Services
• Youth Support Services
6
FINDINGS This section presents key findings that have emerged from analysis of the data
obtained from the interviews with stakeholders.
1. Effectiveness of the six Community Safety Partnerships (CSP)
The six CSPs in Gloucestershire all operate very differently, reflecting the very
different geographical and demographic make-up of the six districts. The Chairs and
Community Safety staff of the respective CSPs, and may other interviewees, also
had very different reflections on the different stages of development of the district and
the county Community Safety landscapes. They were open and honest about the
strengths, as well as the areas for improvement in their own districts/agencies and
there was an almost unanimous call from those directly involved with CSPs, as well
as many who are not, for the creation of an overarching county Community Safety
approach, especially in relation to those universal areas of Community Safety that all
CSPs are tackling, such as domestic abuse, Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB), cyber-
crime and hate crime.
It was suggested by district and county players that the lack of an overarching
countywide Community Safety approach had led to a “vacuum”, a “fracture” or a
“disconnect” with some other key partnerships. This made it difficult for some CSPs
to be strategically linked into some countywide and national issues such as mental
health and substance misuse. Equally without a strategic link between county and
district, some county strategies are not benefiting from a district perspective. For
example, the closure of some children’s centres had an impact locally and was cited
as example of local knowledge not being picked up at a county level. There was a
recurring message from district CSPs as well as countywide organisations that the
limited two way flow of information and intelligence stymied opportunities for flexible
responses to newly emerging issues or crime and disorder “hotspots”.
Throughout Gloucestershire there is a very strong commitment to a “strength based”
approach to Community Safety and a determination to build on the many positive
“community assets” to provide local solutions to local problems. In building on and
consolidating the achievements of the past years it is important to recognise that
there are many unique aspects of Gloucestershire’s diverse communities and the
“one size fits all” approach should not apply to Community Safety Partnerships.
However, there was a very broad consensus that all districts are faced with similar
7
challenges in Community Safety. One comment made early in the review that “we
must all be doing similar things and it makes sense to share the learning and stop re-
inventing the wheel” was echoed throughout the review.
The range of community safety issues is extensive and covers everything from dog
fouling, fly tipping, low level ASB through to serious and organised crime and
domestic homicide. Whilst there is some commonality around the term “Community
Safety” there are very different expectations about “who does what” and how that is
co-ordinated locally and countywide. There is a need for clarification around the
language and definitions of Community Safety. Some interviewees, such as Police
and Probation, were very clear about their specific role in reducing the risk of harm
/re-offending with more serious offenders but did not necessarily relate this work to
the continuum of Community Safety. Other interviewees were more focused on the
other end of the spectrum. It may be helpful to have a simple definition of Community
Safety which includes “the perception of safety and the actual likelihood to suffer
harm associated with crime, ASB, vulnerability and or isolation, whether as a victim,
offender of member of the wider community.”
There appears to be a broad acceptance that the continuum of Community Safety
encompasses “prevention” at one end, e.g. dealing with less serious issues of ASB
and fly tipping and “intervention” at the other end, e.g. dealing with more serious
issues of such as knife crime and CSE. However, these issues do not fall into neat
boxes and there are some cross cutting issues that would benefit from greater
clarification. A number of interviewees suggested a countywide “vision” for
Community Safety, much as there is a vision for the Health and Well Being Board.
The clarification of the vocabulary and vision for Community Safety in
Gloucestershire will need to be progressed as part of the implementation plan.
The review process also provided an opportunity to identify areas of good practice
and innovation across the county. The following examples are just a few of the
challenges being tackled in partnership across the county:
• Working with Community Neighbourhood Forums and Parish Councils to tackle
low level ASB.
• Regular Community Safety fora for Parish Councils.
• Use of mobile CCTV in rural areas
• Innovative use of mentors in Youth Clubs.
8
• Close working between the CSP, the community and the police to tackle knife
crime.
• Addressing the issue of street homeless care leavers.
• Identifying issues and developing constructive activities for local young people
arising from major arson attacks.
• Uncovering possible CSE by tackling ASB.
• Development of joint work around tackling cyber-crime and the elderly.
• District Safeguarding Network.
• Fire service /dementia pack.
Whilst there is some synergy between CSPs and sharing of good practice, through
various Community Safety related networks, there were some missed opportunities
to share best practice. Many respondents suggested that the various Community
Safety related themed groups, subgroups and networks are as complex as they ever
were. The Local Government Association (LGA) Review of the Community Safety
landscape in Gloucestershire undertaken in 2013 suggested that there must be “a
reconsideration of the subgroup structure and that there should be an emphasis on
setting shared standards across the Gloucestershire with delivery undertaken by
individual CSPs”. Based on the many comments about these issues this
recommendation still applies. Such work would be a key priority in the
implementation plan and would benefit from a county wide workshop to align and
rationalise the Community Safety subgroup structure.
Whilst it is difficult to gauge the effectiveness of Community Safety strategies at local
and county level, as there is no current objective benchmarking process in use, some
interviewees had their own subjective view of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of
the CSPs they were directly or indirectly involved with. In reviewing all six CSPs, it
became clear that each is at a different stage in their development and evolution. It is
interesting to note that two CSPs have recently embarked on reviewing the
effectiveness of their CSPs, one through use of external auditors and one through a
self-assessment process. In order to provide some greater consistency around
effectiveness, it would be helpful to develop self-assessment frameworks, such as
developed by the LGA.
Another CSP undertook major restructuring some years ago and implemented a
different local structure, which was often quoted during the review as an example of
good practice. It is some years since there was a Gloucestershire Community Safety
9
Partnership, which despite some weakness, was seen to provide firm foundations for
the development of consistent Community Safety practice at county and district level.
However, over recent years some of the partnership arrangements and
accountabilities have remained somewhat complicated, silo’d and unclear. Nowhere
was this more obvious and worrying than in relation to the number of Domestic
Homicide Reviews (DHR) that have been commissioned in the county in the last 2
years. From a statutory respect, the DHR is commissioned by the relevant local CSP,
which commissions, funds and oversees the DHR. However, the learning points from
any DHR currently remain with the CSPs, and there is no mechanism to oversee or
provide assurance that the learning for local and county organisations is embedded.
The recent Home Office Report (2013) on Lessons Learned from DHRs identifies a
wide range of actions for local areas, including improving communications, training
and general awareness raising. It is recommended that a countywide DHR Sub
Group is urgently established to provide oversight for the DHR process and
assurance that the learning from such tragic incidents is embedded throughout the
county and district organisations.
2. Opportunities to create locally based Multi-Agency Groups with wider remit than CSPs
The rationale for including a review of Community Safety as part of Gloucestershire’s
bid to become a combined authority is to ensure there is a cohesive and integrated
approach to Community Safety that achieves a “safer Gloucestershire”. The
foregoing section on Community Safety effectiveness highlighted a perception,
amongst some interviewees, of fragmentation and disconnect within and between
some partnership work. The review has identified many examples of very effective
partnership working delivering good outcomes but comments such “we have
overcomplicated things” and “silo working still exists” suggest a sense of frustration
and there is more work yet to do to “tighten” up partnership working to improve
community safety.
10
At the same time it is essential to take into account the further national and local
challenges, especially the cross cutting agenda of some of the other key countywide
partnerships, notably the Health and Well Being Board, the Children’s Partnership
and the Enabling Active Communities Partnership. Failure to take the opportunity to
adapt to these new challenges may lead to the system seizing up, as new initiatives
are bolted on to the current Community Safety related partnership
meetings/forums/networks. There are models of delivery within the county that could
be developed within districts to incorporate and streamline a wider integrated and
cohesive agenda that would meet local need and improve Community Safety and
Health and Well Being. The latter stages of review provided an opportunity for initial
discussions to take place between senior representatives of the Health and Well
Being Board about the importance of strategic links to the Community Safety agenda
and vice versa.
The possibility of widening the brief and increasing the flexibility of local partnerships
was well received by many interviewees with the caveat that it would be essential to
establish a clear vision for such an approach and establish set of countywide and
local priorities. There were some expressions of the need for a gradual “organic
evolution”, but these did not detract from a consistent call for some sort of change in
approach to Community Safety in Gloucestershire. Whilst some district CSPs are
already some way down this road, it is recommended that all six CSPs are provided
with an opportunity to consider how such an approach might be expanded across the
county. This could be best achieved by a countywide event, an idea which was well
received. The opportunities of moving towards a Combined Authority structure would
facilitate these discussions.
3. Feedback about what works from the community and stakeholders
The Terms of Reference for this review have ensured a wide range of key
stakeholders have been involved. The review has been very broadly welcomed and
seen as a positive opportunity to take stock and consider new ways of “doing
community safety”. A number of participants have raised the possibility of conducting
a broader consultation with the community, such as an on-line survey on the
strengths and weaknesses of Community Safety. Feedback from such surveys
carried out by other local authorities and organisations, such as Neighbourhood
Watch and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust have, not only given voice to individual
members of the community and vulnerable groups, but have also informed the
The
11
planning and commissioning process. It is recommended that consideration is given
to conducting such a survey in Gloucestershire and ideally in advance of the
implementation of recommendations arising from this review.
Furthermore, a number of respondents, from the Voluntary and Community Sector
(VCS) and statutory sector, referred to the importance of listening to the “User Voice”
and how their organisation use this feedback to adapt services to better meet the
need of service users. Such an approach could be incorporated into more detailed
feedback about what works and what the gaps are in Community Safety.
4. Interface between Partnerships, Strategies and Plans
The foregoing sections of this report have indicated the complexity of partnership
working and various strategies and plans that interface with the Community Safety
agenda. The Police and Crime Plan was cited most often by stakeholders and the
plan’s six priorities help inform the local priorities for the six CSPs. However, it was
recognised there are many other county partnerships that also inform, to a greater or
lesser extent, the work of the district CSPs, notably the Health and Well Being Board,
the Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence Board, the Child and Adult Safeguarding
Boards, the Children’s Partnership, and the Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy.
However, as there is currently no overarching county Community Safety Strategy
there has been virtually no scope or capacity to develop a strategic links between
Community Safety and the other key plans and strategies, other than the Police and
Crime Plan.
A number of CSPs have developed their own strategic plan based on the PCC plan
whilst some, but not all, have developed 1 year Action Plans incorporating a limited
number of priorities from the PCC plan.
5. Planning Process
Most CSPs, as well as other participants, expressed an aspiration for the planning
process to be improved and said that an annual county planning event would be
helpful in setting the strategic direction and the priorities for the county. Since the
demise of an overarching countywide Community Safety strategy a number of the
CSPs felt that they had been left to translate national or countywide strategies into
local strategies. This made for an inconsistent approach to some Community Safety
issues. The preference seemed to be for countywide strategic approach for universal
12
Community Safety issues, such as Domestic Abuse, to be developed at a county
level, leaving the districts to adopt a tactical approach to implementation. The six
CSPs would then be able to adapt the county priorities to fit alongside any additional
local priorities.
An annual planning event would also benefit from better use of data, as part of the
planning and commissioning process. Whilst it was acknowledged that there is a
wide range of very useful countywide data, such as MAIDEN data, the Joint Strategic
Needs Assessment (JSNA) and District profiles, it was also noted that the reduction
in analytical capacity hampered the planning process. Developing a dedicated data
analyst resource for Community Safety which could be set alongside the wealth of
local data and intelligence would be welcomed.
6. Interface with Health and Wellbeing Board (HWBB)
While there appears to be strong support for a county level strategic partnership in
respect of community safety, accountability for such a partnership/ board is less
straight forward. The respective Chairs of the various County Boards who have
participated in this review have expressed a willingness to develop strategic links but
the detail of this will need resolving during the implementation stage.
The landscape has changed considerably since previous partnership arrangements
were in place. At a local level there is considerably more diversity and a greater
emphasis on asset based community development and other ‘bottom up’ initiatives;
13
at a county level there have been significant changes, the most significant of which is
the advent of the Health and Wellbeing Board (HWBB). The HWBB is a statutory
board set up in 2013 as part of the major health reforms, it has three statutory duties
– to prepare a health and wellbeing strategy, to prepare a joint strategic needs
assessment (JSNA) and to encourage integrated working between health and social
care. It is a formal committee of the County Council and has prescribed membership
that includes elected members and officers from GCC and districts, the CCG,
Healthwatch and NHSE. In Gloucestershire this has been expanded to include the
PCC and, more latterly, the Chief Constable and representatives from Health
provider trusts. In lieu of other partnership arrangements the HWBB has assumed
responsibility for significant parts of the community safety agenda e.g. safeguarding,
domestic abuse and sexual violence, drugs and alcohol. In addition issues relating to
mental health and community wellbeing of course are relevant across the agenda.
The board has also considered the PCC’s Police and Crime Plan, is working on
developing a countywide approach to active communities and is now leading on
prevention related to the Strategic Sustainability Plan (STP). In short the HWBB has
effectively led countywide planning relating to the ‘people’ side of community safety.
There are two main options for the accountability of the new Community Safety
Partnership:
- Report into Leadership Gloucestershire (Combined Authority)
- Reporting into HWBB
If the partnership reports into Leadership Gloucestershire (or a Combined Authority
should one be established), working in parallel to the HWBB, arrangements would
need to be agreed to ensure joint ownership of those areas with overlapping interests
e.g. safeguarding, domestic abuse, substance misuse etc. Consideration would
need to be given as to whether other partnerships e.g. the Children’s Partnership, the
Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence Commissioning Steering group, Youth Justice
Board should change their accountability arrangements and /or how they would be
affected. It may be possible to agree that some of these groups report into both
partnerships/ boards and /or that there are regular joint meetings of the HWBB and
the Community Safety Partnership.
If the Community Safety Partnership reported into the HWBB consideration would
need to be given as to how all the partners represented on Leadership
Gloucestershire were able to feed into and influence the work on community safety.
14
In addition some of the elements of the community safety agenda that relate to ‘place
based’ issues such as road safety, street scene, ASB would also need to be
incorporated into the business of the HWBB.
Both of these options have merit; the main issue is to secure strong strategic
leadership, ownership and oversight of the community safety agenda that can drive
necessary changes, work collaboratively with local areas and respond flexibly to new
challenges which will no doubt emerge over the next few years.
7. Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS)
The role of the VCS in Community Safety is extensive and needs to be recognised
and resourced. Gloucestershire has a huge array of small medium and large VCS
organisations that contribute to the delivery of Community Safety in many ways, from
the preventive agenda to intervening with some of the most complex aspect of
Community Safety practice. The VCS Alliance “has been established to be the
independent voice for the VCS in Gloucestershire and to ensure that voice is heard
by commissioners, policyholders and service planners.” The Alliance is currently
involved with a number of Commissioners, the Clinical Commissioning Group and the
Local Enterprise Partnership. It is essential to ensure that future strategic
development in Community Safety includes the VCS.
8. Communications
Another constant theme throughout the review was the need for good communication
and public relations (PR) about Community Safety. There are already a wide range of
communication channels being used by a range of organisations working on the field
of Community Safety and the large county and district organisation have their own
Communications and PR Teams. The Local Resilience Forum was cited by a number
of respondents as an important forum for Community Safety. Some key strategies,
such as the Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence Strategy also include a specific
“communication strategy”, which is currently being updated. Many organisations have
excellent websites and make good use of social media and SMS, for example
Neighbourhood Watch have a very effective SMS alert system and are very mindful
of the delicate balance needed in communicating about community safety issues.
There were mixed views as to whether a move towards a Gloucestershire
Community Safety Strategy will require a separate Communications Strategy.
However it is clear that “we need to pull the stands together” as one respondent put
15
it, to make best use of the resources already in place. For example, there are many
communication channels that are not used such as Parish Newsletters. It is
recommended that further consideration is given to the best way of “drawing the
strands together” as part of the implementation plan of this review.
9. Safeguarding approaches for 18-25 year olds
In recent years Safeguarding, generally, has not had a strong grassroots profile
within CSPs. One interviewee suggested that this maybe because the focus of
Safeguarding has been on vulnerable individuals rather than on communities.
However, the impact of high profile Safeguarding cases, such as Rotherham and at
Winterbourne View, have contributed to Safeguarding being increasingly seen as an
issue that needs to be incorporated in the Community Safety agenda. This work
however, seems to be at an early stage. Examples of CSPs inviting the Chair of
Children’s Safeguarding Board to a CSP meeting are evidence of this growing
awareness of the relevance of Safeguarding to Community Safety. Indeed a few
participants used the term Community Safeguarding to drive home the point.
More evidence of the growing commitment to safeguarding can be seen in the
Countywide Safeguarding Network that aims to “To provide a platform for discussion
between District and Borough representatives, about all aspects of safeguarding
vulnerable groups including prevention work and sharing good practice.” The
network also aims “To co-ordinate the 6 Districts’ approach to safeguarding children
and adults, so that all employees recognise and understand their responsibility to
support vulnerable adults, children, young people and families and to report any
signs of abuse and neglect.” A number of interviewees suggested that CSPs could
play a key preventative role in specific safeguarding issues, such as CSE, by
increasing local awareness of vulnerable young people visiting local “hotspots”, for
instance particular hotels or disaffected young people being exposed to criminal
gangs.
However, the transitional issue of safeguarding the 18-25 year olds is less advanced
and is somewhat of a wicked issue nationally as well as locally. Whilst there have
been discussions between the respective Chairs of the two Boards, this is yet to be
translated into clear policy or practice guidelines. It is accepted that the criteria used
for safeguarding children is clearly age related, whilst for adults vulnerability is a key
criterion. Currently safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults rests with the
16
respective Children and Adult Safeguarding Boards and whilst Safeguarding Children
procedures must be implemented for under 18 year olds, it is accepted that those
vulnerable young people transitioning to adulthood may require a different more
flexible approach. Generally adult safeguarding procedures must be implemented for
18 year old plus and in these situations Children’s Safeguarding should be equal
partners throughout the process, so any issues that impact on the services which are
Children’s services can be identified, addressed and monitored.
It is recommended that practice guidelines are developed in order to clarify which
safeguarding procedures should be followed when abuse is alleged or occurs to 18-
25 year olds and how partnership working between Adult services and Children’s
service should work.
10. Youth Justice
There is a continuum of interventions for young people in conflict with the law in
Gloucestershire and there are many areas of excellent and innovative preventive
work such as the Aston Project and Great Expectations, both of which are seen as
exemplars of best practice and models for future roll out across the county. For those
young people more heavily entrenched with the Criminal Justice System, the
interventions delivered by the Youth Support Service are comprehensive, integrated
and cohesive. However, there was a recurring message through this review about
the need for greater join up for some young people on the fringes of anti-social
behaviour and crime. This section has specific reference to the impact of the youth
justice system on young people with complex needs and how they are treated in the
system. These issues have a particular resonance for CSPs and there were a wide
range of issues raised by interviewees, including:
• Young people with mental health issues in the CJS
• Self harm/suicide risk amongst vulnerable young people
• The prevalence of residential care homes in some districts
• Street homeless care leavers and issues of ASB and substance misuse
• Concern about disconnect between CSPs and schools
• Lack of take up of “out of court” disposals by about 50% of young people and their
families
• Vulnerable young people being drawn into organised crime gangs
• Cyber bullying of vulnerable young people
17
The range of issues is extensive and there is clearly much work to do in developing a
more coherent system that addresses the multiple and overlapping needs and
vulnerabilities of young people in conflict with the law. The previous section on
safeguarding highlighted the issues for those 18-25 year olds young transitioning to
adulthood and it may be helpful to consider a wider “transitions approach” to working
with vulnerable young people, such as developed by T2A (The Transitions to
Adulthood Alliance) and being rolled out in some local authorities. Indeed this work
was being developed by Gloucestershire’s Youth Support Service in partnership with
Gloucestershire Probation Trust, but the project was shelved following the changes
to the Probation Service. It is recommended that consideration is given to re-
establishing this work with the newly established Community Rehabilitation
Company.
With the impending changes to the national Youth Justice Board and the
postponement of Taylor Review of the Youth Justice System, it seems possible that
we might be entering a period of uncertainty about the treatment of young people in
the wider Youth Justice System, which may have knock on implications for
Gloucestershire. Thus this review provides a timely opportunity to take stock and
review the range of interventions for vulnerable young people in conflict with the law.
It is recommend that this work could be co-ordinated as part of the “Young People
becoming Adults” priority in the Police and Crime Plan with a view to developing a
countywide strategic approach that would be overseen by a newly established
County Community Safety Partnership.
11. Crime Reduction
a) Priorities/area profile
Each of the six districts and their CSPs have a distinct local profile, which reflect the
demographic differences and the various local crime and disorder issues. Whilst
there is an overarching aim to reduce crime and the fear of crime there is a wide
continuum of priorities, which the CSPs emphasised to a greater or lesser degree.
These ranged from environmental crime (fly tipping), ASB, Hate Crime, Domestic
Abuse, Cyber Crime, Mental Health issues and Substance Misuse. There are also
distinct differences between urban and rural parts of the county. For example, lack of
transport is a key issue in rural areas, especially if resources or programmes are only
available in urban areas. Urban areas have their own distinct concerns, with knife
crime being a particularly current issue in Gloucester and street homeless care
18
leavers being a challenging issue in Cheltenham. Crime reduction across and
between the districts was discussed in generic terms, such as ASB, Domestic Abuse
and Cyber-crime, all of which encompass some very specific crimes. An overarching
county Community Safety Partnership would provide a clear strategic steer in
prioritising and tackling these issues as well as providing clarification as to “who does
what”.
The recently published Home Office Modern Crime Prevention Strategy was touched
on by some of the police respondents. The strategy clearly identifies some of the
“drivers of crime” such as alcohol, drugs and opportunity and these have particular
relevance for CSPs, especially as it confirms the importance of partnership work and
it echoes the stated aim of all six CSPs in talking about “fundamental shift in the way
all of these partners, including the Home Office, work together to prevent crime. The
impact of our new approach will be seen not just in crime rates themselves, but also
in public perceptions of crime, the plans of Police and Crime Commissioners, and
membership of organisations like Neighbourhood Watch.” It is recommended that the
key relevant strands of the strategy are incorporated into the work of the county
Community Safety Partnership.
The range of priorities in each CSP reflected these differences but there is strong
support for a county approach to the issues identified above, which all districts are
tackling. It was suggested by many, notably those directly responsible for Community
Safety that they were not in a position to develop a strategic approaches to some of
these issues, rather they felt their responsibility was for the tactical implementation
of such strategies. It was also commented on that there appear to be gaps in
developing countywide strategic approaches that would provide a steer for CSPs:
there is currently no county wide ASB Strategic Group; the county Hate Crime
Groups has just been re-established; and whilst there are various approaches to
cyber-crime being developed locally there is a disconnect between some of these
developments, the CSPs and the national Cyber Crime Strategy. One interviewee
suggested cyber-crime was a “game changer for the Police and CSPs”.
The Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence Board (DASV) was seen to as provide a
clear strategic direction to CSPs. However, some respondents indicated their
anxieties around their accountability for some CS issues. All six CSPs identified
Domestic Homicide Reviews as the most worrying example. Whilst accepting the
statutory responsibility for commissioning and overseeing DHRs rests with the CSPs,
19
there was almost no county oversight and it was difficult for district CSPs to hold
county agencies, such as the Police, Probation or County Council, to account for
improving practice and embedding new learning. The DASV and the HWBB have
recently taken on some oversight of this but the overwhelming message was that
accountability is best placed at county level, via a county Community Safety
Partnership. This would ensure better adherence to Home Office Guidelines as well
as providing assurance that the learning points of DHRs are embedded in practice.
The degree by which area profiles are enhanced by good analysis of data seemed
limited and was of concern to a lot of respondents. Whilst all areas contributed
financially to the MAIDEN data system it was clear that areas struggled to make best
use of this data and also of the JSNA and the District Profiles. Some of this was
down to lack of analytical capacity but there was also a sense that a more detailed
understanding of district profiles would be improved by an annual planning event
that would bring together countywide as well as local data and local intelligence.
b) Youth Offending
The specific issue of vulnerable young people in conflict with the law was addressed
in a previous section of this report, but crime reduction and youth offending have a
wider relevance for CSPs. Public perceptions of youth crime and fear of crime are
issues that have attracted media interest for many years and it has been suggested
in a report from the Local Government Association (LGA) that “there is a tendency for
the public to overestimate the scale of youth crime, the numbers of young offenders,
the proportion of overall crimes committed by young people, and the seriousness
(especially in terms of violence) of youth crime. This phenomenon also implies that
external factors (such as media reporting) have a role to play in shaping the public’s
view of youth crime.” (Young People: Crime and Public Perceptions). These are
important findings for CSPs to take into account at a time when senior staff involved
in youth crime prevention suggests that youth crime has “plateaued” and diversion
schemes in Gloucestershire are seen as very effective.
Crime reduction and youth offending must encompass both, prevention and
intervention. Breaking the cycle of offending and reoffending, as well as intervening
in the lives of some entrenched young offenders is the responsibility of the police,
probation and the youth offending team and schemes such as, the Integrated
Offender Management team is an effective multi-disciplinary team that work with the
20
most prolific offenders. It is self-evident that integrated and cohesive partnership
work is the key to effective prevention. CSPs, town and parish councils and many
VCS organisations are supporting and/or delivering a wide range of different
interventions to an equally wide array of young people. Schemes such as Open
House, My UK, Door Project , local Youth Clubs, such as the Brizen Youth Club, the
Aston Project, Great Expectations and Project Solace, to name but a few, are being
run by dedicated and innovative individuals and are successful in diverting many
young people from being drawn into low level crime. However, observations and
comments from a number of respondents suggested that there is need for greater
strategic consistency and connectedness across the county, so the sum of the whole
is great than the individual parts. As previously recommended, this work could be co-
ordinated as part of the priority for young people in the PCC plan.
c) Vulnerable Groups
There was very wide understanding from all who participated in this review of the
breadth and complexity of community safety. In answer to the question “How do you
and your organisation define Community Safety?” people responded with words and
phrases, such as “reducing crime, reducing the fear or perception of crime, reducing
the harm associated with crime, being able to walk the streets safely at night.” The
fact is that crime is falling in Gloucestershire, a county which is generally perceived to
be a safe county to live and work in. Nevertheless, there are groups and individuals
who are more vulnerable to being the victim of crime or live in fear of becoming a
victim. These groups/issues most often cited were:
• The elderly , especially isolated lonely individuals
• Victims of domestic abuse/repeat domestic abuse
• Victims of hate crime
• Individual suffering from mental health issues and the stigma of mental health
• Self harm and suicide
• Young people at risk of CSE and lack of support for victims of non-recent sexual
abuse
• Homeless care leavers
These vulnerable groups were just some those identified during the review as being
high priority groups for CSPs and specific organisations to prioritise and work with at
either a county or at a local level. However, work that targeted some of these
21
vulnerable groups seems limited to particular localities and there would be benefit
from a greater sharing of practice in working with vulnerable groups.
d) Drugs and Alcohol
One very experienced interviewee in the field of substance misuse suggested that
“drugs issues had gone from the top of the agenda to the bottom and that alcohol
misuse should be much higher up the agenda”. It is clear that substance misuse is
major disinhibitor of crime and probation respondents identify that over 50% of cases
suffer from an alcohol problem whilst about 30% misuse drugs. Nevertheless, it was
interesting to note that drugs and alcohol were not identified so prominently by
interviewees in this review, as might have been expected. That is not to say that they
are not a major issue for CSPs and at least one CSP has a clear priority to reduce
the harm caused by alcohol and drugs. The Home Office’s recently published
Modern Crime Prevention Strategy clearly identifies drugs and alcohol as clear
“drivers of crime”. It states that “drugs are a complex and evolving issue and getting
our approach right is crucial to tackling the crime and wider health and social harms
and costs to society drugs cause”. It goes on to say that “Preventing alcohol- related
crime and disorder requires concerted action by all with a stake in the successful
operation of the evening and night time economy”.
Drug and alcohol issues remain of great concern to Gloucestershire CSPs, but an
overarching strategic approach to drugs and alcohol misuse seem to have been
diminished within the CSP agenda. Gloucestershire no longer has a Drug and
Alcohol Action Team (DAAT). The PCC Plan highlights the need to reduce alcohol
and disorder related crime and the county is poised to recommission the drugs and
alcohol treatment service. Gloucestershire’s current Alcohol Harm Reduction
Strategy (2016-19) is overseen by the Heath and Well Being Board but the six CSPs
are not strategically linked in. It is recommended that the plan to establish a county
wide Community Safety Partnership includes discussion with the Health and Well
Being Board about the overlapping issues of alcohol and drug use between the
respective Boards.
e) Support for Victims
The PCC plan is clear that the “service and support provided to victims should be at
the heart of the approach”. Likewise the six CSPs, their partner agencies and
22
stakeholders aim to put victims at the centre of Community Safety practice. The
foregoing section on vulnerable groups highlights some of this work, but the review
drew out a more complex picture of support for victims. This ranged from individual
support for elderly victims of crime from members of the community and parish
councillors; through to the support for victims of ASB by a range of specialist ASB
staff employed by Housing Associations and district councils; support for victims of
Domestic Abuse by Independent Domestic Violence Advocates (IDVAs); and the role
of Victim Support (VS) in providing dedicated support for victims of hate crime, cyber-
crime and ASB. Restorative Gloucestershire are a pivotal agency in developing and
rolling out Restorative Justice (RJ) across the county. However, this work is still
evolving and Restorative Gloucestershire are very keen to develop closer links with
CSPs and for RJ work to be further embedded across the county. The fact that only
5% of referrals to Restorative Gloucestershire are victim led indicates that there is a
way to go to develop RJ as a powerful resource for victim.
There are a number of cross cutting issues involving the Victim and Witness Unit, the
Criminal Justice Board, the work of the Victim Liaison Officers employed by the
National Probation Service. Restorative Gloucestershire, the Domestic Abuse and
Sexual Violence Board and the six CSPs would benefit from a joined up approach,
which could be overseen at county level by an overarching Community Safety
Partnership.
12. Review of links between Community Safety, Safeguarding and Safeguarding Boards
A previous section has addressed some of the transitional Safeguarding issues
relating to 18-25 year olds. Additionally, many of the respondents have articulated a
clear cross over between Community Safety and Safeguarding, notably those directly
involved in Children’s Services and Domestic Abuse. However, all there was an
emerging view within the CSPs that “nothing should be excluded from CSPs” that
“safeguarding should definitely be part of the CSP agenda” and that we should be
moving towards a “wider strategic locality partnership”. The linkage between
Community Safety and Safeguarding is currently variable across the county, with
some partnerships including safeguarding as part of a wider remit, others beginning
to develop the links by inviting the Independent Chair of the Children’s Safeguarding
Board to address the local CSP meeting, and others have separate local
Safeguarding subgroups. In addition, there is the previously mentioned countywide
23
Safeguarding Network but the Terms of Reference do not make clear any link with
CSPs.
In summary there are plenty of examples of bridges between the Community Safety
landscape and the world of Safeguarding but the sense is that safeguarding issues
need to be made more explicit within the CSP agenda if they are to have any
meaning. One interviewee observed that CSPs tend to “look at the service and not
the issue”. This perceptive comment helpfully distinguishes the importance of
keeping the CSP agenda vibrant and relevant as opposed to relying on a fixed
agenda.
This final section has begun to articulate the potential for a wider remit for a locally
based multi-agency forum other than just focussing on what has become a broadly
delineated CSP agenda. It is clear that some CSPs have already evolved into a
different operational model and others are interested in considering such a
development. There have been cautionary voice as well, expressing the view that
CSPs “cannot do it all” and they would “benefit from a clear steer” from a county
Community Safety Partnership. This must include a clear vision and clear statement
of priorities that delivers a coherent and integrated approach to Community Safety in
Gloucestershire. It must also retain an absolute expectation that the work already
underway in developing Strength Based Working and Asset Based Community
Development in the six Districts is actively encouraged to flourish.
24
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Priorities for Improving Community Safety
Establish a Review Implementation Group – This group could evolve from the
current steering group and would develop an Implementation Plan to take forward
the recommendations and findings from this Community Safety Review. The
group would be accountable to Leadership Gloucestershire.
Develop the Gloucestershire Community Safety Partnership (GCSP) – The
review established strong support for the development of an overarching body for
Gloucestershire that would provide the strategic co-ordination of the agreed
countywide Community Safety themes (such as Domestic Abuse, Cyber-Crime,
Anti-Social Behaviour) on behalf of the six Community Safety Partnerships
(CSPs) in Gloucestershire. The Partnership, which could be established in
shadow form initially, would need to link to a number of other strategic boards
that lead on cross-cutting agendas including the county-wide Office of the Police
and Crime Commissioner, Health and Wellbeing Board, the Safeguarding
Children Board, the Domestic & Sexual Violence Board and the Enabling Active
Communities Partnership. There was a recurring theme throughout the review
that a strategic vacuum was created by the winding up of the Gloucestershire
Safer and Stronger Justice Commission over two years ago which had led to a
sense of fragmentation of some aspects of Community Safety across the county.
This could initially be developed as a shadow GCSP.
Plan for an annual Community Safety Stakeholder Conference – The first of
these should be held in early 2017 to draw together all the elements and
recommendations arising from this review. The event would be an opportunity for
the shadow GCSP to work with stakeholders to develop and agree a three year
Community Safety Partnership Plan and establish a small number of key
priorities for improving Community Safety and reducing crime and disorder in
Gloucestershire. This plan would augment and compliment the Police and Crime
Plan and would be updated annually. It is also recommended that consideration
be given to this conference being a biannual event, certainly in the first 2 years to
review progress and deal with any emerging issues.
25
Plan to meet with Chairs of six CSPs – The six CSPs are all at different stages
in their evolution and it will be an important priority for the local leaders for
Community Safety to contribute to the planning of a more cohesive and
integrated approach to Community safety.
2. Operating Models for Community Safety
As part of the implementation plan arising from this review, three options of
Community Safety operating models have been considered:
Option 1: Minor change - This essentially sees limited change to the status quo;
the six CSPs would remain in place and continue to evolve organically. Whilst
there is some joint work across the CSPs this could be enhanced by a regular
forum for CSPs Chairs to meet to share ideas and common approaches to
common issues. The CSPs would continue to contribute to the delivery of the
Police and Crime Plan. Some of the Community Safety cross cutting issues could
be rationalised and continue to be “owned” by the Health and Well Being Board
(such as Domestic Abuse and Substance Misuse) and the Enabling Active
Communities (such as Building Stronger Communities). This option should
include a rationalisation of thematic partnerships thus minimising any
duplication/silo working as well as establishing groups to plug the current gaps of
ASB and Domestic Homicide Reviews. In most 2 Tier Authorities the County
Council undertakes a high level Joint Strategic Intelligence Assessment on behalf
of the District CSPs to determine the Community Safety priorities. This is
currently not the case in Gloucestershire, but should be considered as part of this
limited change option.
26
Option 2: Medium Change. The development of the GCSP working in close
partnership with the six CSPs – there was an almost unanimous agreement
during the review for the establishment of an overarching County wide
Community Safety Partnership that had clear Terms of Reference, a clear
planning process, strong district representation and most importantly a strong
and influential Chair. There was no desire to add a further bureaucratic layer but
it was widely viewed that the Community Safety landscape had become
fragmented. This was compounded by the fact that there is no county Joint
Strategic Intelligence Assessment that informs the planning process. Such an
approach would lead to greater consistency in the delivery of some of the
universal Community Safety issues, free up the Districts to become more tactical
as well as enabling the districts to focus on a “place based approach” to
Community Safety.
Option 3: Major Change. A transitional option, as part of the move towards
becoming a Combined Authority – this would involve the merger of the six
current CSPs in to one overarching Gloucestershire Community Safety
Partnership, but most importantly it would retain six District Multi Agency Forums
that could “customise” the tactical implementation of the countywide strategies
developed by the Gloucestershire Community Safety Partnership, of which the 6
Districts would be key members. This model would also consolidate and further
develop the unique aspects of the local partnership arrangements. A number of
other two tier authorities have successfully moved to this arrangement, notably
Norfolk and North Yorkshire. These authorities have evidenced improved
responses to ASB and greater consistency towards other Community safety
27
issues. They have also benefited from a more consistent and coherent strategic
approach as well as greater clarity and commitment in leadership at county and
district level. This option would see the biggest countywide change in the
Community Safety landscape in many years, but it could also deliver greater
efficiency and effectiveness as well greater consistency and coherence. Applying
any of the changes described in the 3 options will require careful management,
especially option 3, and it will be essential to involve councillors in the decisions
about next steps. However partnerships will continue to face exceedingly difficult
choices over the coming years but making a major change now will prepare
Gloucestershire to continue to adapt to the changing Community Safety
landscape. It is recognised that this option would require significant
developmental support and would require all six CSPs agreeing to such an option
and would need approval by the PCC but would provide:
- Clarity in leadership of the community safety agenda in Gloucestershire,
providing a focus for engagement across all responsible authorities and
other key stakeholders.
- A sharper focus to strategic arrangements across the county, aligning
partners to best effect with rationalisation providing a practical solution to
the resourcing of meetings.
- The Gloucestershire Community Safety Partnership would support six
District based Multi-Agency Forums that would continue to develop a “place
based approach” with a wider agenda than just Community Safety issues
and would retain the overall responsibility to.
- Protect their local communities from crime and disorder, and help people
feel safer.
- Deal with local issues like antisocial behaviour, drug or alcohol misuse, re-
offending and crime prevention.
- Assess local community safety and crime and disorder priorities and consult
partners and the local community about how to deal with them.
This new model could bring together operational managers of the responsible
authorities, supported by other relevant organisations, to co-ordinate and ensure the
delivery not just the county Community Safety priorities but also ensure the delivery
of local priorities. Consideration could also be given to developing a wider Strategic
Transition Plan to align the cross cutting priorities of the Health and Well Being Board
and the Enabling Active Communities. The various thematic sub groups would report
to the Gloucestershire Community Safety Partnership.
28
3. Steps towards greater integration
A rationalisation of partnership arrangements at countywide and district
level – There is a clear need to rationalise the current complex arrangements of
the county and district partnership landscape. It is inconsistent across the county
and this leads to a confusing picture between CSPs, as well as for partner
agencies. As part of the implementation plan arising from this review it is
recommended that a county wide mapping exercise/workshop is undertaken as
soon as possible. The outcome of this exercise would be presented to the first
Community Safety stakeholder conference in early 2017 with a recommended
new structure. The GCSPB could then focus on oversight of smaller number of
themed subgroups relating to a clear set of priorities. This new structure should
be evidence based, informed by relevant county and local data and have simpler
linkages to other delivery mechanisms.
Supporting infrastructure – In order for these new arrangement to be effective
it will be essential to provide sufficient/lean infrastructure support. It is fully
recognised that resourcing infrastructure support will be challenging but was
recognised by a number of Chief Officer interviewees that such support is a
critical ingredient of success. The 2013 LGA review of Community Safety in
Gloucestershire highlighted the lack of basic support had contributed to the
ineffectiveness to the delivery of the county’s Community Safety plan. At the very
29
least the GSCP will need some form of secretariat to co-ordinate the new
structure, organise meetings and prepare briefings. Additionally the review has
highlighted the importance of data analysis in the identifying priorities, and in the
planning and commissioning cycle. The GCSP will have a key role in developing
and agreeing the county Community Safety strategic assessment and there will
need to be some dedicated data analysis support. Ideally a Community Safety
Policy officer would enhance the work of the new Partnership and would work
with a number of partners and other bodies, to respond to the policy agenda
being driven by a reduction in resources across the partnership, at the same time
developing joint policies with other partners so as to improve our response to
those with mental health problems, victims of domestic abuse and tackling child
sexual exploitation.
Simple Strategic Planning Framework – The Police and Crime Plan was most
often cited as the key planning document for the CSPs but there is a clear need
for a more co-ordinated planning process. The recommendation for the
establishment of the GCSP coupled with the establishment of an annual planning
event implies a more strategic planning and commissioning process. This
process would be co-ordinated by the GCSP support team working in partnership
with the CSPs and other stakeholders. It would be a holistic approach to planning
and avoid duplication and ensure a close interface with other partnership plans.
There are 4 components to the continuum of Community safety planning which
range from the need for immediate ‘intervention’ to more long term “prevention”
measures:
1. Immediate response to high level risks e.g. knife crime, arson (Intervention)
2. Mitigating increased risk situations (Intervention)
3. Reducing identified risks (Prevention)
4. Promoting and maintain Community Safety (Prevention)
30
Identification of these 4 components would go some way to clarifying the question
raised during the review about “who does what?” There are then 3 challenges which
were identified in the review and will need of a clear commitment from senior leaders
namely:
1. Collaboration.
2. Information sharing.
3. Measuring outcomes.
The planning framework will need to take into account other county wide plans (e.g.
Police and Crime Plan) as well as addressing the needs of the local districts. It is
recommended that greater use is made of local data and intelligence. The Joint
Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) could be integrated with a Joint Strategic
Intelligence Assessment (JSIA), using police data, and would be a key component of
the framework which would identify a small number of countywide Community Safety
priorities. At a district level the District Profiles, produced by GCC, could be coupled
with an audit of community assets in order to identify the key local priorities.
Relationship between Safeguarding Boards and Partnerships –
Safeguarding is everybody’s business and there should be close working
between the CSPs and the two Safeguarding Boards. There is an evolving
picture in Gloucestershire as CSPs increasingly integrate Safeguarding issues
into the Community Safety Agenda. The Social Care Institute for Excellence has
promoted the development of joint protocols between Safeguarding Boards and
31
other partnerships such as CSPs. This review recommends that these are now
established in Gloucestershire between the GCSP and the two Safeguarding
Boards. These protocols could include the following elements:
- the non-hierarchical relationship between the boards
- the need to establish processes for the development of strategic plans that
recognise and complement each other
- the process for sharing and commenting on annual reports
- a resolution process for any issues that might arise between the boards
4. Oversight and Scrutiny of Community Safety
There is currently very limited oversight and scrutiny of Community Safety at a
county level. The establishment of a new GCSP could be accountable to Leadership
Gloucestershire but could also undertake the following tasks:
Monitor and evaluate activity undertaken to deliver the Gloucestershire
Community Safety Plan.
Develop links and opportunities for collaborative working between the responsible
authorities and other relevant organisations to deliver the most efficient and
effective community safety services for the communities of Gloucestershire within
available resource.
Agree the terms of reference of the six CSPs.
Receive regular updates from each of the CSPs and provide updates in return.
Develop a Risk Log to mitigate risks to Community Safety services by
implementing the most appropriate control measures.
Attract funding and resources from appropriate funding streams and/or
organisations.
Agree the utilisation of funding and other resources attracted by the CSP.
Provide advice and feedback to the PCC to support the development of the
Police and Crime Plan and the commissioning strategy.
Communicate and consult with the communities of Gloucestershire in partnership
with the CSPs, on community safety matters and ensure any feedback received
follows an appropriate channel to influence the work of the CSP.
Provide a countywide approach with regards to Domestic Homicide Reviews.
In terms of oversight and scrutiny at District level the six CSPs could benefit from a
review as they are all structured differently. Four of the six are chaired by elected
32
members, with responsibility for oversight and scrutiny resting with a range of District
Committees. It is recommended that ,as part of the proposed meetings with CSPs
Chairs, the issue of whether the proposed arrangements for county oversight,
outlined above, are sufficient or whether there needs to be a more consistent
approach to oversight and scrutiny at District level .
Furthermore it is recommended that the bid to become a Combined Authority
includes the proposal for the oversight and scrutiny of a single CSP to sit with the
Combined Authority.
5. Multi-Agency co-commissioning
The response to this section of the review was bound up in the need to improve the
planning and commissioning process. There were examples of co-commissioning in
other Gloucestershire partnerships but there has been limited co-commissioning in
Community Safety. Opportunities and gaps in Community Safety should be identified
at the annual planning event and these opportunities for co-commissioning could be
overseen by the GCSP together with the relevant partnerships such as the HWBB. It
would be the role of the GCSP support team to develop progress and monitor such
work.
33
APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Terms of reference – Community Safety Review
Review of Community Safety in Gloucestershire Terms of Reference
1. Background
Included within the Gloucestershire bid to become a Combined Authority (submitted
to Government 4.9.15), was the element of Community Safety. The rationale for this
inclusion was based on the challenge of ensuring that we have an integrated and
cohesive approach to community safety at both a county and local level.
Strategies to reduce crime and help people to feel safe need to operate at both a
local level and at a strategic level whether this is countywide or from a national
perspective. In Gloucestershire this requires partners at both district and county to
work together and to be clear about their respective responsibilities. The secret of
success is to get a clear, integrated and cohesive strategy in place which can be
dovetailed into each local community.
When the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was implemented and in particular section
17, each local authority was given the authority to formulate a strategy to reduce
crime and disorder and to work with appropriate authorities including the Police,
Health and Probation in order to achieve this. Section 17 was arguably the most
radical element of the Act as it highlighted the notion of shared responsibility for
crime reduction across a wide range of local authority services.
Section 17 was primarily conceived by the Home Office as an enabling device for the
promotion of effective crime reductive activities with the Police and Local Authorities
but over time this has diminished and not had the sustained impact that was
originally intended.
In addition the context has changed considerably and new issues have emerged
causing government to develop its policy in respect of areas such as Child Sexual
Exploitation, radicalisation and slavery/ trafficking. In part this is the result of a better
understanding of the risks and local concerns have led to the development of new
groups such as those established to tackle gangs and knife crime in Gloucester. New
requirements have also been set for local areas to establish additional partnership
arrangements such as the PREVENT Board and Modern Slavery Partnership. These
issues all have strong links to safeguarding as tackling issues in the community also
means identifying and intervening with individuals and families both to safeguard
those at risk and the wider community from the consequences of their actions. The
relationship of the local Safeguarding Boards to these new partnerships is at best
unclear and is often being resolved through dual membership. None of these creates
a coherent, efficient local system for responding to complex, multi- faceted problems.
Gloucestershire currently has six Community Safety Partnerships (Formerly CDRPs)
based within each of the District Council areas respectively that includes or has
included members from the County Council, Probation, Fire and Rescue, Police and
Health.
34
The recent introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners (2012), changes to the
Health Service structures and, changes to Probation have introduced major change
to the partnership landscape. The impact of this could have created some benefit but
in many cases have caused fragmentation within CSPs as each new partner has
their own strategy that does not always interface or integrate with Community Safety.
Conclusion
There is a need to ensure we have resilient communities, are able to harness support
and, that our communities receive an efficient and cohesive response from public
agencies when needed. There is now a requirement to think differently about the way
in which we approach Community Safety in Gloucestershire and this review will lead
to a new approach that will:
Provide strategic governance
Deliver a coordinated response and direction at a local level
Provide an interface to key partners, strategies and plans that will maximise
effectiveness and efficiency
Create a safer Gloucestershire
2. Context / Interrelationships
The government is currently in the process of negotiating Devolution Deals as a
means of providing greater powers and funding locally to stimulate economic growth
and to reform the way that public services are designed and delivered locally. As
part of this, Government are requiring new collaborative governance arrangements in
the form of Combined Authorities as part of the proposals.
In support of a devolution deal for Gloucestershire, the County Council, six District
Councils, Local Enterprise Partnership, Clinical Commissioning Group and Police
and Crime Commissioner have jointly developed a proposal for a new Combined
Authority where their resources will work closely together to secure shared strategic
objectives.
The Community safety element of the proposal aims to achieve greater cohesion
between relevant partnerships, strategies, plans and communities in order to make
Gloucestershire a safer place.
3. Purpose of the Review
The overarching objective must be to establish a strategic framework that can
achieve ‘a safer Gloucestershire’ by making recommendations in respect of:
3.1 Defining the priorities for improving Community Safety within the County
3.2 Describing the recommended operating model for the community safety ‘system’
3.3 Setting out steps that will lead to greater integration and clarity of relationships
between all Community Safety related partners, partnerships, strategies and
plans, including:
3.3.1 A rationalisation of partnership arrangements at countywide and district level
3.3.2 The infrastructure needed to support partnership arrangements
3.3.3 A simple strategic planning framework
35
3.3.4 Clarity in the relationship between the Safeguarding Boards and
recommended partnerships
3.4 Making recommendations about how Community Safety will be subject to
oversight and scrutiny.
3.5 Making recommendations for potential opportunities for multi-agency co-
commissioning in the community safety arena
4. Scope
4.1 To review existing district based Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) to
assess their effectiveness, how they link to local needs, how they link to county
wide issues, national issues and other partnerships, strategies and plans and
current funding arrangements.
4.2 To review opportunity for the creation of locally based multi-agency groups
(Locality Partnerships) that have a wider remit other than CSP issues. This will
avoid the current approach whereby a number of partnerships exist at a local
level with multi-agency attendance. This approach will create greater cohesion at
a local level and be more cost effective in relation to attendance at meetings.
4.3 To engage with all stakeholders including our communities seeking views as to
what would work at a local level.
4.4 To review the current interface between Partnerships, Strategies and Plans. (A
full list of partnerships, strategies and plans will be made available)
4.5 To review how 18 to 25 year olds are managed through the County Safeguarding
approach. People in this age range are often subject to different approaches
based on their age not need.
4.6 To review Youth Justice and how it impacts on individuals who may have a lower
mental age or complex needs and how they are treated within the system.
4.7 To review crime reduction including :
4.7.1 Priorities / area profile
4.7.2 Youth offending
4.7.3 Vulnerable groups
4.7.4 Drugs and alcohol
4.7.5 Support for victims
4.8 To review the links between Community Safety, Safeguarding and Safeguarding
Boards
5. Not in scope
5.1 Those partnerships not identified within the whole systems information provided
6. Output
6.1 Phase 1 : Interim Report - (within 6 weeks of commencement)
6.2 Phase 2 : Final Report – ( within 10 weeks of commencement)
7. Oversight
7.1 Oversight of this review will be conducted by the Community Safety Steering
Group
36
8. Publication and Timeline
Activity Owner Date
Approval and Funding of Review
Leadership Gloucestershire
28 April 2016
Commissioning of Review Richard Bradley (RB) 29 April 2016
Review Commences RB / John Bensted (JB) 23 May 2016
Interim Report @ 6 weeks RB / JB 4 July 2016
Final report @ 10 weeks RB / JB 22 August 2016
Consultation on Review RB / JB 5 September to 3 October 2016
Refine Review RB/JB 4 to 18 October 2016
Presentation to LG RB /JB 27 October 2016
Implementation RB and Steering Group 28 October onwards
37
APENDIX B: GCSP Briefing Note 030516
Briefing Note: Review of Community Safety in Gloucestershire Why are we conducting a review? Strategies to reduce crime and help people to feel safe need to operate at both a local
level and at a strategic level whether this is countywide or from a national perspective. In
Gloucestershire this requires partners at both district and county to work together and to
be clear about their respective responsibilities. The secret of success is to get a clear,
integrated and cohesive strategy in place which can be dovetailed into each local
community.
When the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was implemented and in particular section 17,
each local authority was given the authority to formulate a strategy to reduce crime and
disorder and to work with appropriate authorities including the Police, Health and
Probation in order to achieve this. To enable this Crime and Disorder Partnerships
(CDRPs) were created to carry out a three year crime and disorder strategy and to
regularly audit this. Section 17 was arguably the most radical element of the Act as it
highlighted the notion of shared responsibility for crime reduction across a wide range of
local authority services.
Gloucestershire currently has six Community Safety Partnerships (Formerly CDRPs)
based within each of the District Council areas respectively that includes or has included
members from the County Council, Probation, Fire and Rescue, Police and Health.
The recent introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners (2012), changes to the
Health Service structures and changes to Probation have introduced major change to the
partnership landscape. The impact of this could have created some benefit but in many
cases have caused fragmentation within CSPs as each new partner has their own
strategy that does not always interface.
There is a need to ensure we have resilient communities, are able to harness support
and, that our communities receive an efficient and cohesive response from public
agencies when needed. There is now a requirement to think differently about the way in
which we approach Community Safety in Gloucestershire and this review will contribute
to a new approach that will:
Provide strategic governance
Deliver a coordinated response and direction at a local level
Provide an interface to key partners, strategies and plans that will maximise
effectiveness and efficiency
Create a safer Gloucestershire
Who will be consulted? A consultation process, including a series of interviews will be held with all stakeholders including:
Partnerships
Partner agencies
38
Voluntary Sector
Community
Victims Who will co-ordinate the interviews? The interviews will be co-ordinated by Joanna Szymanska, Commissioning Officer, OPCC, who will arrange convenient interview dates. [email protected] Tel No: 01452 752589 Who will be conducting the review? An independent consultant, John Bensted, has been appointed to conduct this review and will work to a defined Terms of Reference. Who will provide oversight during the review period? This will be provided by the Community Safety steering group, a representative group comprising members from key stakeholder groups. What will be the timeframe for the review? It is expected that the review will commence in Mid-May with an interim report produced 6 weeks later, a final report will be available by early September. An implementation phase will then commence in Autumn 2016 based on the recommendations of the review. Richard Bradley Deputy Chief Executive Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner